Presentation on theme: "MEASURING RESULTS OF IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT: THE EVALUATION OF COMPLETED IRRIGATION PROJECTS IN THE PHILIPPINES Nick Baoy Pilipinas Monitoring and Evaluatiuon."— Presentation transcript:
MEASURING RESULTS OF IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT: THE EVALUATION OF COMPLETED IRRIGATION PROJECTS IN THE PHILIPPINES Nick Baoy Pilipinas Monitoring and Evaluatiuon Society Email: email@example.com@yahoo.com INTRAC/PSO/PRIA Monitoring & Evaluation Conference Soesterberg, The Netherlands 15 June 2011
PHILIPPINE AGRICULTURE SECTOR: A QUICK OVERVIEW Total agricultural area : 9.6 million ha (32% of total land area) Share of agriculture in GDP: 18% Share of agriculture in total employment: 35% GVA share of crops in agriculture: 50% Total rice production in 2010: 15.8 million mt Total rice imports in 2010: 1.8 million mt
PHILIPPINE IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT: QUICK FACTS Total irrigation potential: 3.1 million ha (32% of total arable land) Total area served by irrigation: 1.4 million ha Share in irrigated area by type of system: – National systems: 49% – Communal systems: 39% – Private systems: 12% % of rice produced in irrigated areas: 76%
IRRIGATION PROJECTS EVALUATED ProjectTotal Area, ha A - CMIPP16,879 B - TGISRP 3,218 C - PDDP 7,836 D - BHIP-14,140 E - BHIP-25,300 F - BRISRIP 11,954 A B C D E F
SIGNIFICANCE OF EVALUATED PROJECTS Project % share in total irrigated area % share in total rice production A - CMIPP2.50.78 B - TGISRP0.50.15 C - PDDP1.20.11 D - BHIP-10.60.15 E - BHIP-20.80.12 F – BRISRIP1.80.47 Total 7.41.8
OBJECTIVES OF EVALUATION Examine the performance of six completed projects funded by yen loan Identify issues that need to be addressed to improve project performance Suggest measures to enhance project effectiveness and sustainability
KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS Were the projects able to expand the irrigated rice area? Were the projects able to increase rice production in target areas? Did the projects contribute to the increase in farmers’ income?
Collect & review project documents Clarify project results framework Formulate rapid assessment plan Consult with project stakeholders Planning Phase Assessment Phase Action Planning Phase Implement assessment plan Analyze data & assess performance Present findings to project stakeholders Formulate action plan Prepare RIPPA report RAPID IRRIGATION PROJECT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (RIPPA) FRAMEWORK
Output Outcome ACTIVITIESINPUTSOUTPUTSOUTCOMEIMPACT Labor Equipment Technical assistance Construction/ rehabilitation of irrig facilities Institutional development Supply of equipment Operable irrig system Functional water users groups Improved system O&M Increased irrigated area Increased rice production Improved irrigation service Increased farm income Improved living standards Self-sufficiency in rice TYPICAL RESULTS CHAIN OF IRRIGATION PROJECTS
SOME PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN RIPPA Mapping Transect walk Interviews (focused, group, key informant) Structured problem/solution analysis Participatory action planning workshop Triangulation and cross-checking
KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS The projects succeeded in expanding the irrigated rice area. The projects increased average rice yields in target areas. The projects contributed to the increase in farmers’ income. Due to operational issues, most projects failed to achieve cropping intensity targets.
PROBLEM TREE: BHIP-I Target irrigated area (4,740 ha) not achieved Insufficient water at Malinao dam Inefficient water distribution Water conveyance losses Some leveled lands remain un-irrigated Low amount of rainfall Dam not reservoir type Degradation of watershed Non-compliance with CCPP Unlined/very long MFDs Incomplete MFDs/SFDs Insufficient water in DS ISF collection target is not achieved Cropping intensity target is not achieved Defective WD structures Weak IA policy enforcement Illegal turn-outs Damaged canal structures Lack of SFDs Illegal checks/ impoundments Institutional issues Lands higher than canal
PROBLEM TREE: BRISRIP Target irrigated area (11,954 ha) not achieved Low river discharge Water can’t reach some areas Flooding in the downstream Sugarcane areas are excluded from LIPA Degradation of watershed Low rainfall (e.g. El Nino) Non-compliance to WDD schedule ROW problems Lack of drainage outlets Sugar lands are not irrigated Sugarcane farmers are not IA members ISF collection target is not achieved Cropping intensity target is not achieved Lack of terminal facilities Inefficiencies in water mgt Farmers unable to build ditches Siltation of drainage canal Flooding during high tides Excessive water offtake/diversion Institutional issues No control over crop conversion Weak IA policy enforcement
ISSUERECOMMENDED ACTIONS (1) Low river discharge arising from degraded watershed & low rainfall Coordinate with PENRO re Bago River Watershed Mgt Promote Water Saving Technology (WST) Continuous review of CCPP/WDD (2) Water cannot reach some areas due to lack of terminal facilities and inefficiencies in water management Assist IAs/TSAGs in constructing on-farm facilities Settle ROW problems Strengthen IA policy enforcement Strictly implement WDD schedule Promote WST (3) Flooding in downstream due to lack of drainage outlets, siltation of drainage channels & tidal flows Construct additional drainage outlets/channels De-silt clogged drainage channels Build pumping station/check structures for seawater (4) Sugarcane areas are excluded from LIPA as farmers do not avail of irrigation service during WS Include sugarcane lands in LIPA even if irrigated only during DS Review ISF collection policy for lands served by project facilities but not availing of irrigation service ACTION PLAN: BRISRIP
Issue/Problem Planned Solution/ Countermeasure Actions Taken by Concerned Unit in NIA Actions Planned in 2011 Actions Planned up to 2012 & beyond Estimated Budget Requirement Budget Source and Status Expected Results (e.g. Hectares Developed/Restored ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ACTION PLAN TEMPLATE
SOME INSIGHTS ON RIPPA Quick structured method for assessing project outcomes and identifying post-project issues which could feed into periodic and more formal evaluations Commitment among stakeholders in addressing project issues is promoted by participatory evaluation approaches Attribution of observed changes/results becomes a challenge in evaluating projects that have long been completed.